A massive human rights failure that is blighting lives and communities. That's what the Human Rights Commission is saying as it launches a national inquiry into housing and charges successive governments here with failing in not providing a critically important human right - the right to a decent home.
This is the release from the commission:
Te Kahu Tika Tangata / Human Rights Commission has today launched Framework Guidelines on the Right to a Decent Home in Aotearoa and announced that it will hold a national inquiry into housing.
“New Zealand governments have signed up to a critically important human right: the right to a decent home. For generations, they have promised to create the conditions to enable everyone to live in a decent home, but this has not happened. Successive governments have failed New Zealanders,” says Chief Human Rights Commissioner Paul Hunt.
“For many people, especially young people, the goal of an affordable, healthy, accessible home has actually become more remote. These serial governments bear a heavy responsibility for this massive human rights failure which is blighting lives and communities.”
Mr Hunt adds, “The right to a decent home, although binding on New Zealand in international law, is almost invisible and unknown in Aotearoa.”
“The purpose of the Guidelines is to clarify for central and local government, and individuals, communities and iwi, what the right to a decent home means in New Zealand,” says the Chief Commissioner.
They were developed in partnership with the National Iwi Chairs Forum with the support of Community Housing Aotearoa.
"The National Iwi Chairs Forum has a specific responsibility to ensure the wellbeing and prosperity of whānau, hapū and indeed communities. With this responsibility sits Te Tiriti o Waitangi, which forms the underlying foundations of the relationship we have with the Crown," says Rahui Papa and Dame Naida Glavish.
National inquiry details to be announced later this year
The Human Rights Commission will use the Guidelines in a national inquiry into the right to a decent home under section 5(2) of the Human Rights Act.
Mr Hunt says the inquiry will focus on selected components of the housing crisis.
"The inquiry will engage with communities and officials and make findings, as well as constructive recommendations,” Mr Hunt says.
“The present government has made a promising start on housing, but it remains to be seen if it will do better than its predecessors and address New Zealand’s housing and human rights emergency. Based on the Guidelines, the inquiry will help ensure the government keeps its promises to everyone in Aotearoa New Zealand.”
An announcement on the inquiry structure, composition, terms of reference and timescale will be made public later this year.
Support independent journalism. Support interest.co.nz... Find out more.
Government accountability is key
The 48-page Guidelines are built on values such as fairness and manaakitanga (respect), the United Nations ‘decency’ housing principles, successive governments’ international promises, and Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
"There is no excuse for those who hold the pen, who are in positions of decision making and authority, to ignore the right for our people to a decent home and what a decent home means. We are interested in the views of the Crown and how they will instil these Guidelines into their policies and practices," says Rahui Papa and Dame Naida Glavish of the National Iwi Chairs Forum.
“If the right to a decent home is explicitly taken into account, it can strengthen and improve housing policies and other initiatives, and it can empower individuals, hapū, iwi and other communities,” adds Chief Commissioner Paul Hunt.
“One problem is that housing initiatives across the public and private sectors lack adequate explicit recognition of the human right to a decent home. Our Guidelines help to address this shortcoming. They provide a framework on which we can build.”
“The housing crisis in Aotearoa is also a human rights crisis encompassing homeownership, market renting, state housing and homelessness. It is having a punishing impact especially on the most marginalised in our communities," says Mr Hunt.
The United Nations independent expert on housing rights backed this view in a report on New Zealand tabled in the United Nations in June.
Leilani Farha wrote that housing speculation, a lack of affordable housing options, limited protection for tenants, substandard housing, the absence of an overarching Te Tiriti and human rights-based housing strategy, and a lack of adequate social housing or state-subsidised housing are the main causes of the crisis.
Mr Hunt says the Guidelines signal the different ways the right to a decent home can constructively contribute to a fair and dynamic housing system in Aotearoa New Zealand.
“We must recognise that everyone has the human right to a decent home grounded on Te Tiriti. The Guidelines highlight the unique context of Aotearoa, the importance of active and informed citizen participation, and the need for accountability.”
34 Comments
There are no such things as human rights, if you don't curtail both population, and per-head resource consumption.
Period.
Arguing for ever-more via 'rights' is just the arrogance-justification of the most sapient species thus far on planet Earth, but unfortunately we have proved the point hat sapience does not halt overshoot (within a Bounded System) before it happens.
Firstly I strongly object to having New Zealand's name unilaterally changed to "Aotearoa" which is manufactured name foisted on us by Government controlled entities such as the HRC without consultation.
Following from that although I agree that everyone is entitled to a home, it should not be at the tax payers expense- with the exception of short term emergency housing. State home are all subsidized by the tax payer and those who live in them should only have their use while they are in need. When they are on their feet they should buy their own. We have become a nation of beggars asking the Government to do everything for us instead of having the guts to stand proudly on our own two feet without running to the Government every time we want something for nothing.
Careful BigDaddy, you'll get labelled a racist with that comment. That accusation is thrown around anytime a person takes an opposing view to that of Maori academics, politicians, radicals, Iwi etc.
Spot on about social housing. Needs to be temporary not a lifetime gift courtesy of us ('taxpayers').
Jacinda: "Housing absolutely is a human right, unfortunately the previous government didn't do enough and it takes time to correct this (cue big frawn). Let us not forget that this Government has helped 12 families into homes as part of the $400 million Progressive Homeownership Scheme launched in July last year. Kia kaha New Zealand - p.s. watch out for the delta coming to a place near you soon"...
Rights are earned, not doled out. Try convincing everyone that the poor performers in the Olympics that it's their right to medals despite their performance. I can see where this is going, glad to be in the market now for new inventories to capitalise on fairy dust initiative backfiring.
“For many people, especially young people, the goal of an affordable, healthy, accessible home has actually become more remote. These serial governments bear a heavy responsibility for this massive human rights failure which is blighting lives and communities... 48-page Guidelines are built on values such as fairness and manaakitanga (respect), the United Nations ‘decency’ housing principles, successive governments’ international promises, and Te Tiriti o Waitangi.”
You are confusing hot with round! Shelter is everyone "need" while participation in Olympics or other status related achievements are "wants". As a society it is beneficiary for us to guaranty basic needs so people can not be afraid to strive for their wants be that better shelter, food, business or achievements in sports.
I have no problem with homeless being put in caravans. State sponsored caravan parks, communal kitchen and toilet block. Much cheaper than housing, and tenants have a responsibility to clean common areas.
IO-too many in NZ are happy to be HNZ tenants for life. Struggling but 'pop' another kid comes out. Intergenerational welfare is destroying NZ.
No, rights are not earned - they are entitlements. Which is why there is no right to an Olympic medal, because no-one is entitled to one.
Rights - things like the right to vote, the right to a fair trial, the right to a primary and secondary education are not things that you have to earn. It would be pretty awful if they were. What would you have to do to 'earn' a fair trial? Or a vote? What would a 5-year-old have to do to 'earn' an education? If you got charged with a crime, and you didn't do whatever you needed to do to 'earn' your fair trial, should the Government just throw you in jail without any due process?
The real question is whether there is in fact a right to housing, and if so, what this means - but misunderstanding what rights are doesn't help us solve this.
Your dodgy logic amuses me. You earn your right to vote when you come a certain age, being a resident and enrolled yourself into the electoral roll. You earn yourself a place in an educational institution by studying hard and making the entry grade requirements. You earn your right to innocence by being cooperative and putting in effort in defending your case.
Seems like your version of rights is congruent to self-entitlements paid for by someone else.
One issue is that people who 'won' medals from previous Olympics can get more medals via dodgy deals with the Olympic committee (using equity) but those entering the Olympics now have to legitimately win them (saved deposit) via actual/real performance...but their performance doesn't count because the Olympic committe have decided to favour their old winners. So even though the new competitors win the 100m race and are more deserving of the prize, the medal still goes to the previous champion who was 1sec slower across the line. Then the previous medal winner wonders why no new competitors want to race and think the Olympics are corrupt. But they're still living in a paradigm based upon their past glory, detached from the present reality of new competitors trying to do their best when their best is never going to be good enough under the unfair conditions being imposed upon them.
Hardly fair play....
All of those rights are entitlements paid for by someone else. The taxpayer pays to run the electoral system - you don't have to pay to vote. The taxpayer pays for public schooling - you do not have to pay for primary and secondary educations in NZ. (And no five year old has to 'earn' themselves a place at a school). The taxpayer pays for the justice system (no-one has a right to innocence, by the way - you do however have a right to due process, and you do not 'earn' this right by being co-operative and putting in effort. People who are accused of crimes who don't put in any effort and are un co-operative still have a right to a fair trial).
It's illegal not to be on the electoral role once you're over 18. How is that a right I'm earning if I'm compelled to do it?
How do my kids earn a place in an educational institution. Again, once over a certain age, you have to be there or being taught somehow.
You don't earn a right to innocence. It is a fundamental presumption. Please, do the world a favour and recuse yourself from any jury you might be selected for on the basis that you're not capable of fulfilling your basic civic obligations, and spare us the lectures until you've at least got some Year 9 social studies under your belt.
Try asking your kid to apply for college with just a pencil. For your info I'd been on jury a couple of times. It's hopeless when an accuse had been piled with overwhelming evidence of a crime while sitting duck refusing to even talk not less refute the evidence. That usually leaves his legal aid team look like fools trying hard to discredit the accusation.
And yes I'm usually elated to see convicted criminals going to jail and hearing his whenau shouting "stay strong" knowing that he committed a hideous crime. Justice for the victims should be in the social studies curriculum not some woke ideas we have in schools these days.
When you employ no-hopers to run a Country, throw money and debt around like it was nuffin, give em freebies, fly em around, give em free reign, to achieve Sweet F/A, what the hell do you expect when all we do is perpetuate the stupidity, spending our hard earned money, putting them up in Beehive to talk rubbish and then expecting Improvements, where the Hell have you been the past 30 years....All change, no change. Rant over.
Oh! no its not........We then have to endure ORR to decicide flipping Policies, heads or tails with our Funny Munny System, with a bunch of goons, never worked a day in their Life. Do have a pleasant day....in Windy Wellington....and over priced and totally Windy Awkland, before it Pops.
Whilst I think that the current government could do a far better job, and I did not vote them in; please answer me this:
Do you HONESTLY think that the National Party were doing a good job for the 9 years they were in power? Do you HONESTLY think that things wouldn't be measurably worse if they were still in?
Yes. Yes I do. Bill English was not John Key. The question you're asking is "Would the country have been better off with Bill English's social investment program instead of four years of floundering and rewriting unrealistic campaign promises or just hoping people would forget them in the absence of any meaningfully critical media coverage?".
Or do you 'reject that premise'?
Article 25.1
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
Nothing there about a human right to own your own home.
Any civil society should guarantee its citizens a roof over their head. That's not the same as 'giving everyone a property' - it's just a simple recognition that people have bad times, get ill, lose jobs, etc.
See also: clean water to drink, a fire service, schools for kids, a legal system, police, soldiers, etc.
This government needs to be held accountable for the sub-standard level of accommodation that is provided for emergency housing & those on the housing waiting lists.
The majority of our State-owned houses currently do not meet our Healthy Homes standards.
New Zealanders have a right to a minimum level of adequate housing. Perhaps the Housing Commission & the government need to focus on that first before they get carried away on trying to define what a decent home is.
The government also needs to be held accountable for the current unacceptable level of housing price inflation & housing affordability.
The price of houses would have been so much more affordable if the government hadn’t tinkered with the Reserve Bank’s mandate to include “maximum sustainable employment” when setting the Official Cash Rate. This change has mean’t that interest rates are now much lower than they would otherwise been & as a result NZ now has unaffordable housing. This problem is now very unlikely to be fixed for a least a decade & will deprive an unacceptable number of Kiwis the right to have adequate housing.
This whole subject springs from the usual cant from the UN. Enough food to sustain life, clothing to maintain warmth, and shelter from the elements are all basic necessities, but a bit more complex than just labeling them "rights". Surely obtaining them requires some effort by each individual, and mere desire needs to be tempered with reality.
Also I think we need to differentiate between people unknown to you providing assistance after you fall on hard times, and the expectation these folk will fork out just to fund your lifestyle choices.
Just judging from my own grandchildren, their expectation is they will move into a 150 sq. m house complete with modern appliances. It is difficult to tell them their expectations are fantasies.
The keys to a fulfilled life are pretty obvious,...a basic education, a job involving reasonable effort, a "marriage" (partnership) that utilises the efforts of a "team", and the fortitude to maintain that partnership ongoing. I see no objective reason why a young couple, having delayed parenthood whilst saving shouldn't aspire realistically to a tiny first home, say 30 - 40 sq m, on leasehold land for say, about $150k.
Of course that is certainly a mirage whilst our society, or more accurately our government accomodation regulations, set ridiculously high first home standards.
But that is an entirely different issue!
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.